Rapist to victim: will you marry me?

Dilution or outright waiver of punishment if a rapist offers to marry his victim is an extra-legal step, one that is not written into law anywhere.
But it continues to be entertained because the internalisation of stigmatisation is wide-spread, and even the victims believe it.
Shoma Chatterji
reports.

In 1991, Bollywood churned out two films that wove their stories around rape victims. The first was Benaam Badshah (1991);
starring Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor, the film unfolded the story of a pretty young girl in a Mumbai chawl, who is raped by the male lead actor (somehow, the word 'hero' is difficult to use with 'raped'). The victim takes on a determined, if bizarre crusade to get this rapist to marry her. The other film Tejaswini, a Hindi remake of a southern hit, dealt with the struggles of a lady police officer who has to constantly fight against the anti-socials of her area funded by a minister. At the centre of the narrative is her crusade to see that the politician's son is forced to marry a girl he raped. Thankfully, Benaam Badshah sank at the box office without a trace. Not so Tejaswini, which was a thumping box office hit in the southern states.

Fifteen years later, the story of the rapist going scot-free by marrying his victim transcended the celluloid world to step into the ugly reality of life. In 2005, in Charthawal village, Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, Imrana, wife of Noor Elahi, was being forced to separate from her husband and marry Ali Mohammad, her father-in-law, who had raped her. The decision was supported by the local panchayat, which declared her existing marriage null and void. She was commanded to observe a period of seven months to 'purify' herself and then marry Ali Mohammed.

Imrana proved a woman of some courage. With her husband's support, the intervention of the National Commission of Women and other leading women's
organisations, and an uprising within the media, she thwarted those who wished to railroad her into further victimhood beyond the rape itself. Recording her statement
before the chief judicial magistrate in Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh on 20 June 2005, Imrana told reporters that she was ready to defy the community panchayat. "I will continue to live with my husband despite the fact that the panchayat has declared that my marriage has been nullified after the rape. My husband supports me and I am ready to defy the panchayat," she said. In August that year, the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Darul-ul-Uloom of Deoband and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) the two pillars of Islamic bodies in India, to reply to a petition filed against them. The petition charged these organisations with interfering with the country's legal system and introducing parallel Islamic laws in violation of the Constitution.

Illustration: Farzana Cooper

Questioning the unilateral, feudal and fascistic approach of the 'community panchayat' in the Imrana case, in a press statement (June 20, 2005),
several leading women's organisations said: "How can a system exist parallel to political and executive bodies constituted by the state, manned (they appear to be run exclusively by men) by persons who are ignorant and insensitive and whose judgements are irrational and inhuman? How can their authority supersede that of the state?"

The State however, is party to the same unilateral game. In 2002, the Delhi High Court quashed the rape case against one Manoj Kumar after the victim submitted an affidavit saying that she was willing to marry him. Even when the victim refuses to marry the rapist, as in the case involving the rape of a 23-year-old Delhi nurse of Shanti Mukand Hospital, rapists can resort to this tactic. In this instance, the victim was raped, her right eye was gouged out, and her left eye was badly wounded by a ward boy on September 07, 2003. As she waited in court for the judge to pronounce punishment, in an application to the court, the rapist Bhura proposed marriage to her. His argument was that since no one would be prepared to marry her due to the social stigma, he would like to do so. She turned down the proposal as bogus, horrible and audacious. "He made it sound like a favour. This was more shocking than the proposal itself. The most horrible thing in the whole business was the court having admitted such an application," said the victim. In the end, justice prevailed, and Bhura was awarded life imprisonment.

In other cases, however, rape victims themselves appear to tolerate offers of marriage by rapists. Why? Dr. Manjeet Bhatia, of Womens' Studies and
Development Centre, Delhi University, thinks this is just an extension of social attitudes towards the crime itself. "The internalisation of being stigmatised for
life is so deeply ingrained in the victim that she actually believes that marrying her rapist is the only way out," Bhatia says. And so the practice continues. Dr. Rajat Mitra, psychologist and director, Swarnchetan, an NGO that counsels victims of such crimes, says it cautions rape victims against marrying their attackers, telling them that such marriages are disastrous and are marked by further violence. But not every victim is willing to heed this advice. "When we tell people, for example, her family members, that she cannot live with somebody who has caused her such trauma, they brush it aside saying that the girl would get over it," says Mitra.

The story of the rapist permitted to go scot-free if he marries the victim is rooted in ancient history, and is more a gender issue than a
religious one. Susan N Herman, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School, writes: "In some ancient societies, women were treated as a form of property and rape was
defined as an offence against the property owner - the woman's father or husband - not against the woman herself." (Crime Control and Civil Liberties in Criminology,
A Contemporary Handbook.)

Clearly, dilution or outright waiver of punishment if the assaulter offers marriage is an extra-legal step, one that is not written into law anywhere. Nonetheless the legal community appears to be willing to overlook this. Arati Mundkur, of Alternative Law Forum, says, "With regard to rapists marrying their victims, there is no rule or law on this point. This is a personal perception, unfortunately adopted by the judiciary as evinced in the recent Shanti Mukand rape case. The quantum of punishment should in no case be influenced by an offer from the rapist to marry the complainant. In a number of workshops we have conducted across districts in Karnataka, the idea among lawyers and among women is that if the rapist wants to marry the woman raped by him, no FIR/complaint should be filed. This offer to marry her is itself considered atonement."

Ranjita Biswas, journalist, says, "When a rapist offers to marry his victim there is purportedly, a sigh of relief. What a perfect solution! The woman is socially rehabilitated and the rapist is forgiven. After all, he has agreed to marry her, hasn't he? Sadly, even lawyers sometimes consider this not such a bad idea and choose to defer judgement waiting for a 'response' from the victim. But how can the courts entertain such a preposterous proposition in the first place? This is victimisation of the victim all over again. She has already been wronged. The wrongdoer, on the other hand, neatly escapes the consequences of his heinous act."

Shoma Chatterji25 April 2007

Shoma Chatterji is a freelance writer based in Kolkata, and a member of NWMI. She is the author of 16 books, including 'Kali - The Goddess of
Kolkota' and 'Gender and Conflict'.

chanpreet
Maam
I could not agree more with the views expressed in this article.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, should be allowed to work towards absolving a rapist of his guilt, least of all an offer to marry the victim. The latter is not atonement for any of the numerous ways in which rape is a violation on the person of the victim.
I may be stating the obvious here, but the fact that such practices receive social sanction validates the need to reiterate the already said, the already known.

April 26 2007, 11:19 AM ·
0 ·
0

Priya
This article is an eye-opener indeed. Living in cities we are far cut off from the realities that the other half faces. Realities such as having to marry your rapist, is almost like a slap in the face of post modern India.
Spreading of awareness and campaign seems to be the only course of action available. Or is there another?

May 03 2007, 4:48 AM ·
0 ·
0

MANOHAR.R
This article is indeed an eye-opener for all, especially the so called elite in the power settings. It should not be allowed that a perpetrator commits such heinous crime of robbing a woman of her privacy and destroying her dignity and then he proposes only to escape. He should be punished for the crime and the women protected from such assaults from the system. For this the media and all like-minded citizens should stand up against such acts.

September 27 2007, 1:48 PM ·
0 ·
0

shruti
Its very sad that even today we have people who feel that women are their 'property'. Socially we are 200 years back where the society feels that marrying the rapist makes the social rehabilitation of the woman. Any such instances in India should be publicly condemned.Aussalted women must get justice.Awareness on gender erqality must be created.

November 22 2007, 9:14 AM ·
0 ·
0

Farah
It is indeed a shameful act to marry the person you have raped rather than to be apologetic for the dreadful act. when people talk about spreading awareness with regard to this,i do not really agree with that. The problem just cannot be dealt only by that, "mindsets cannot be changed overnight"...more stringent laws need to be drafted which should have a detrrent effect on the rapist.

March 04 2008, 4:20 AM ·
0 ·
0

Sneha
Really........ its difficult to believe that such options are laid out befor a rape victim amidst talks of 'women Empowerment'......... the shocking part is how such options are seen as a path of least resistence and thus as way of reconciliation and peaceful settlement of cases....its shameful for a nation which is trying to call itself 'DEVELOPED'

November 30 2008, 1:31 PM ·
0 ·
0

Puja Agrawal
Hello Mam,
I find your article very informative but the sad truth still remains that the rape law has still not changed. It gives more leeway to the accused and in no way is helping in getting the victim justice. Heinousness of this crime is increasing and not decreasing day by day. I strongly feel that stringent laws should be implement to wipe this kind of crime. THE LAW SHOULD BE SO DREADFUL THAT NO MAN EVER AGAIN WILL THINK OF THE WORD RAPE.

May 17 2009, 8:59 PM ·
0 ·
0

India Together offers an excellent forum for people from diverse fields of expertise to present their views, share their experiences and raise questions about where our country and society are headed in the future.

Amitabha Basu

Retired Scientist

National Physical

Laboratory

India Together reader

India Together offers an excellent forum for people from diverse fields of expertise to present their views, share their experiences and raise questions about where our country and society are headed in the future.

I urge all democratic-minded individuals to road, contribute to and publicise the e-newsletters from India Together. All power and success to India Together staff for their excellent and vital contribution to our society!